The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

The context of the thread would suggest that implicit in your question is the statement that the 'revolutions' in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria etc. are a result of US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that particular claim is far from established yet.

Sure, its Makiya's theory that i'm road testing here. Given the context of the thread and his influence in GW2. Though how much can be attributed to Makiya isn't clear.

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

Western intervention in Libya certainly helped tip the scales against Gaddafi, but Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen were, as far as I can tell, indigenous revolutions brought about by mass protests due to immense dissatisfaction with the existing autocratic rulers. The case of Egypt especially does not support the argument of 'Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan caused the Arab spring' because the US did not 'break' with Mubarak publicly until well into the 'revolution'. So if anything, the Egyptian revolution was a rejection of a US supported dictator, much as one could argue the mass protests in Pakistan against Musharraf (perceived domestically in Pakistan as a US puppet dictator) led to the dilution of his powers and eventual removal from office.

Point remains that the US still continues to support Egypt. It did not matter whether Mubarak stayed or left.

Ergo. leaders may be changed externally or internally. Internally in Egypt's case. Egypt really was the big test and mattered the most. Tunisia from a geopolitical perspective is much more removed and French turf. Think back to Algeria back in '92, the French would not support a transition there at the time. So why the change of mind when Tunisia came around.

The point is nobody cared about arab self-determination in the past. There have been plenty of protests and riots earlier but hardly made a dent.

Egypt's food riots in '77.
Syria and Hama in '81
Pals and the first intifada in '87, this was peaceful, the second was violent.
Algeria in '88
Shias in Basra in 91

There are probably many more examples but none of them mattered one bit as the old arab order still applied. That order does not necessarily hold any longer. The gulf might get away for some time longer but the heat is on.

Agree ,the old order is dead.The fact is every dissent in the Arab world was directly against the local ruling elite and indirectly against whatever foreign backer.That the foreigners sometimes changed is true,but there was always somebody in the shadows.There was no peep of mass protest when the US,UK or France were ''insulting'' the holly lands,because deep down in the Arab psyche was the fear of the West.They knew the local chaps could massacre them and nothing will happen to them.And if something went good for them,a Western army will come and set things straight.That fear is gone after Iraq,precisely because they know there won't be another Iraq.Plus,they are in many ways irrational,so the retreat from Iraq and A-stan,normal as it us for us,for them is a proof of victory.Victorious people are bold people.There are,of course,many other details,particular conditions,etc...

Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36